IMO this rating system is to granular, subjective and hard to understand. I think a better way to indicate that a package is "good" is to simply maintain a list of officially recommended packages. Some objective requirements (perhaps in combination with subjective requirements) can be used to determine if a project should be recommended, for example:
* Must use CI * Must be included in Nim's CI (`important_packages.nim`). * Must be actively maintained * Must have released version 1 * Must have documentation * Must be licensed with a non-copyleft permissive license I think requirements such as those are better since they are easier to understand (both for the maintainer and user of the library) and implement. With the more complex rating system it's very hard to understand why a project has received a certain score, and what should be changed to improve the score.
